The Bible: What Is Its Purpose?

[ghostdog19]

For you then to make accusations against me

Actually, I didn't accuse you of anything and I'm sorry if you interpreted what I said to be some sort of accusation. But thanks for giving me a chance to explain, aye? I was trying to determine if you'd found these on a site as they're quite common, or you'd dug these out yourself. I was asking a question. Not accusing. And for the record giving you fair benefit of the doubt also when a moderator asked me to clarify the relevance of asking. Contextomy is used time and again by people to point out contradictions that simply aren't there, and the list you presented is one typical of this. I was simply trying to ascertain if you were aware of that.

and even use the words 'secularist' and 'atheist' as if they are, at the worst 'scum' or at best, shouldn't be allowed to discuss the Bible,

You see, what I said was "Or are you quoting some secularist or atheist website somewhere?" and "simply quoting from some secularist site where judging by the first quote, I suspect they haven't either". For you to interpret that as me saying that secularists and atheists are the worst scum or at best, shouldn't be allowed to discuss the Bible, has me thinking that no matter what I say, you will 'assume' a position and apply that to me regardless. I've known better informed secularists and atheists, as have you judging by the fact that you say ...

I'd also like to point out that the list also contained 'supposed' contradictions that, once I looked them up myself, didn't seem (to me) to be contradictions at all.

but I don't feel that secularists or atheists shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bible. But I do believe that when you criticize something, you really ought to know what you're talking about, secularist, atheist or Christians.

it's hardly surprising if I find your eliteist manner offensive.

Well, since I didn't accuse you of anything, or slur secularists or atheists in the manner you describe, then yes, it's somewhat surprising, and surprising that you would label me elitist. Unless what you're getting at is that if someone knows more about the bible than you they're automatically an offensive elitist, who, let me guess, shouldn't be allowed to discuss the Bible? Following this accusations I'm not really feeling up to discussing much with you to be perfectly honest as I feel that if you're able to interpret me saying the word 'secularist' as me calling them 'scum' and that they shouldn't be allowed to discuss the bible, no amount of explaining context is going to wash with you now.

Please remember, the Bible is many different things to many different people and your view of it does not have to be shared by all, no matter how much you believe you are right.

I've never said the bible DOESN'T mean different things to different people. Again, how you've come to this conclusion, I don't know. Context is simply what books like Exodus are about. It's like saying "chips, peas, carrots" is the word of god and it means that these things are to be eaten every day," and I'm saying "it's a shopping list". If you choose to interpret that as being gods recipe, go for it, but the point is it's a shopping list. that's the context within which those words appear. As is often the case with quotes taken from the bible, context IS NOT applied and it certainly isn't in that list you put forward. Pointing that context out isn't me saying 'you're all wrong and I'm right', it's me telling you 'it's a shopping list.' Because biblical scholars and historians have ascertained that that is what they are. "Eye for an eye" isn't an edict for Christians to kill people. It's a Jewish law concerning mercantile renumeration in court. I agree, it can be easily used by someone to mean "I can kill because you killed one of my own" but that again is the fallacy of quoting out of context. So this accusation of yours is unfounded. I'm trying to inform. So if you are as you say....

I started this thread to ascertain peoples different thoughts and views on the Bible in an attempt to better understand it.

....then kindly pay that some mind, and not interpret everything I say as an affront.

the Bible than simply answer the questions to the best of your ability yourself?

If you would like me to explain the context of the quotes you've put up then I'm perfectly willing to do so (though I have to tell you now, "Who is the Father of Joseph?" and "Is Jesus equal to or lesser than" really do probably merit threads of their own). But really, is any context going to wash with you now, following how you've interpreted what I said to Pietro_Mercurios?

Anyway... better things to do elsewhere.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

The implication of your post was that I didn't know what I was talking about, which in your above post you have confirmed with this sentence

But I do believe that when you criticize something, you really ought to know what you're talking about,

Whichever way you look at it, that's an accusation, it may not have been a conscious accusation but it was one nontheless.
You on the other hand seem to be convinced that you do know what you're talking about, about a subject that no one can say for cirtain that they know what they're talking about ergo, you're acting in an eliteist manner.
I've read the same book as you and personaly I see non of the same context as you. That's not to say that I'm wrong or you're wrong, because the simple facts are, NOBODY knows for sure, so for you to say that I don't know what I'm talking about while suggesting you do is offensive.
But as you say, better things to do.

 

[ghostdog19]

The implication of your post was that I didn't know what I was talking about, which in your above post you have confirmed with this sentence

But I do believe that when you criticize something, you really ought to know what you're talking about,

Again, quoting out of context because that sentence ends, "secularist, atheist or Christian", whom I'm addressing. So unless you claim to be all three, I'm not talking about you directly. I'm talking about people in general. Secularist, atheists, Christians, it doesn't matter. hence why I said "but I don't feel that secularists or atheists shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bible" in answer to you claiming that I said that they shouldn't. We weren't talking about YOU, we were talking about Secularists, Atheists and threw in Christians to the equation. That is context. I can see how you would construe that to mean what you want it to mean, I can fully understand. but my intention with that comment was general. An unconscious accusation??? so you claim to know what I'm thinking??? I can't possibly talk to you because no matter what I say, it's not what I'm thinking???? If you don't believe me even when I tell you with all sincerity it wasn't an accusation, what is the point of me telling you about what we know courtesy of historians and biblical scholars regarding the context of the biblical quotes you've chosen and stated are contradictions?

I think it's high time I put your nonsense on ignore. Bye bye.

 

[ghostdog19]

Christians have for centuries made a cottage industry of "explaining away" those supposed biblical contradictions

Do you mean Christian apologetics? There's quite a few that cover the question of biblical contradiction and as you say, yes, they've been shooting them out of the water for years. Since as far back as the first century AD in fact.

 

[stu neville]

I've read the same book as you and personaly I see non of the same context as you. That's not to say that I'm wrong or you're wrong, because the simple facts are, NOBODY knows for sure..

This is the entire point of the discussion, to mull over interpretations, being always mindful that it's quite possibly the most subjective book in the world.

As such, point scoring and umbrage taking is counter-productive in the extreme - so let's just get on with the otherwise extremely high-quality discussion, OK?

 

[ghostdog19]

Bible contradictions are often presented as quotes with no further explanation. The very juxtaposition should be evidence enough according to those making such claims. A convenience since they needn't validate their claim any further. But you take any two quotes from any book and you can distort their meaning, because just by simply quoting, you're removing them from context. It's called contextomy, and it can be deceptive.

Christian apologetics basically explain the contradictions by reapplying that context.

Here's one that addresses the usual list of supposedly contradictory quotes:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html

and here's another that covers a great many more:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX

 

[QuaziWashboard]

The implication of your post was that I didn't know what I was talking about, which in your above post you have confirmed with this sentence

But I do believe that when you criticize something, you really ought to know what you're talking about,

Again, quoting out of context because that sentence ends, "secularist, atheist or Christian", whom I'm addressing. So unless you claim to be all three, I'm not talking about you directly.
I think it's high time I put your nonsense on ignore. Bye bye.

A far as I can see, I'm quoting you well within context as I count myself as an atheist, and seeing as how you said 'secularist, atheist OR Christian,' I can't see how your meaning could possibly be 'all three' at the same time.
You said that whoever wrote the original questions about Bible contradictions didn't know what they were talking about which implies that if I ask the same questions, I too don't know what I'm talking about.
This I find insulting when we're talking about a subject where nobody really knows for sure what they're talking about.
Hopefully now, if you've put me on ignore, you shall no longer be making these insulting posts that leave me no option but to defend myself.
If you haven't, please refrain from this un-gentlemanly behaviour, which apart from myself, was also picked up on by Pietro_Mercurios from the very beginning.

An unconscious accusation??? so you claim to know what I'm thinking??? I can't possibly talk to you because no matter what I say, it's not what I'm thinking???? If you don't believe me even when I tell you with all sincerity it wasn't an accusation, what is the point of me telling you about what we know courtesy of historians and biblical scholars regarding the context of the biblical quotes you've chosen and stated are contradictions?

By that I meant that maybe the accusation wasn't intentional....I was giving you fair leaway, but I don't believe you would truthfully tell me 'with all sincerity' that it wasn't an accusation, without apologising for the misconception of your post, of which you said yourself....

I can see how you would construe that to mean what you want it to mean, I can fully understand.

stuneville.
I apologise to you, Pietro_Mercurios, and the rest of Fortean Times message board users if it seems I'm point scoring, but I'm simply answering posts directed at me. As far as I'm concerned, I simply asked a few innocent questions (which I was invited to ask by my good friend and occasional sparring partner OldTimeRadio) for which I was basicaly told 'You don't know what you're talking about.'
I've said my piece now and shall refrain from publicly defending myself against ghostdog19's accusations.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

As far as I'm concerned, I simply asked a few innocent questions (which I was invited to ask by my good friend and occasional sparring partner OldTimeRadio) for which I was basicaly told 'You don't know what you're talking about.'

Note that the questions you posited weren't addressed either - simply evaded, with accusations that you were applying them out of context, or didn't really understand them.

BTW, the websites that ghostdog offered are weirdly hilarious: these people really do tie themselves in knots over this stuff. Take this, from http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX :

11. God is the author of evil
"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?" [Lam 3:38]

"Now therefore say to the people of Judah that those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan for against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and actions." [Jer 18:11]

"I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things." [Is 45:7]

"I also gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not live by." [Ez 20:25]

"When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? [Amos 3:6]

God is not the author of evil [1 Cor 14:33 / Deut 32:4 / James 1:13]

Now, in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church gatherings - that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God tempts with evil. (I think Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set.

Talk about believing your own bullshit! He evades the question altogether by saying that yes, god might be the author of good and evil, but he ain't unjust - in which case, god must be automatically good (It brings to mind what sentimental old cockneys say about the Kray twins: 'They was 'ard, but they was fair. You could walk the streets safe in them days. They only picked on their own kind etc. etc.'). The point about church gatherings is irrelevant (it seems to be saying that god is always a god of peace at church gatherings, with no word about what he might be outside them) while the fact that god is excused on the grounds that he at least doesn't try to tempt men with evil seems more a desperate attempt to salvage some reputation from a decidedly unpleasant character.

Of course, it could be that I've misunderstood the author's explanations altogether (particularly in the bit about god being a god of peace in church gatherings, which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in the context), in which case I can only apologise, and wonder why such questions cannot be answered with anything clearer than a tangle of sophistries.

(the above quotation is just an example, by the way - there are plenty of similar others, but frankly I have better things to do...)

 

[ghostdog19]

As far as I'm concerned, I simply asked a few innocent questions (which I was invited to ask by my good friend and occasional sparring partner OldTimeRadio) for which I was basicaly told 'You don't know what you're talking about.'

Note that the questions you posited weren't addressed either - simply evaded, with accusations that you were applying them out of context, or didn't really understand them.

As far as I'm concerned, I simply asked an innocent question and that was regarding Quazi's source. I didn't say to him 'You don't know what you're talking about'. I didn't even know at that point if he held any truck with what he'd posted. He'd just posted a series of quotes for OTR to tuck into as far as I saw, with no opinion on them. But I do believe that the source doesn't know what they're talking about as there is a fallacy of quoting out of context and the list is pretty old. Apologists have been over these numerous times, and yes, they're defined by context. As for evading the question, there was the small matter of a misunderstanding to clear up first. What's the point of discussing context in the bible with someone who's misinterpreting the context of your post? Quazi said himself, he'd asked Old Time Radio, not me. So they weren't my questions to answer. But I did offer.

As for accusations. You can be as rude as you like about other people's beliefs but if anyone should ask you about what informs your beliefs that's an offensive affront? "Talk about believing your own bullshit!" as you put it.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

barfing_pumpkin....please, no offence, but....give it a rest. I know you mean well, but It's spoiling the thread. :cry:
I was afraid of this kinda thing happening when I started this thread as there are so many different opinions on the subject, I suppose it was bound to end in argument and accusation, which is why I've tried to make my posts in question form rather than statement form, to try and avoid it. Unfortunately I didn't forsee that merely asking questions could also lead down that path so I would be grateful if we could just move on and get on with trying to explain some of the many contradictions found in the Bible and/or maybe find out how modern day Christian's view those contradictions, of which I'm sure there are as many different opinions and explanations as there are sects of Christianity.

As an attempt to inject a bit of fun back into this thread, I am reminded of the tradition of the 'No Prize' held in the letters pages of Marvel Comics. (Spider-Man, The Hulk, Captain America....ect.) Any Marvel readers here will be familiar with the 'No Prize,' but for those that aren't, the tradition is that if you spot a mistake of any kind, be it continuity or an artistic mistake in any Marvel comic you can write in, point out the mistake and then try and explain the mistake away so it's no longer a mistake. If your succesful, they print your letter and award you the 'No Prize'.....which is nothing...of course.
Eg. The comic artist forgot to put in cirtain facial tattoos that a character is supposed to have. The explanation could be that the character was simply wearing more makeup than usual. (which sounds more convincing if the character's female, but plausable for a male too.)
It could be fun to try and explain the Bible contradictions in the same way.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Yes. QuaziWashboard is quite correct. After all, this same argument, about who is fit to interpret Holy Writ, has been going on since John Wycliffe's first handwritten translation of the Bible, into English and the Lollards, in the 1380's.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

The very ambiguity of the Texts has been fundamental to the branching development of Christianity, over the last seven, or eight hundred years, at least. Many people burned because of it.

So, please stick to a discussion of the Bible and not to who is, or is not, the most knowledgeable in the interpretation of the Theological fine print.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

The very ambiguity of the Texts has been fundamental to the branching development of Christianity, over the last seven, or eight hundred years, at least.

Playing devils pedant* here... are the individual pieces of bibical text really ambigious, or merely contradictory when taken as a whole?

Has it been that humans have added the abiguity to explain away problematic veres or to suit their own political or sociological machinations?




*Like the advocate but more arsey

 

[ghostdog19]

Yes. QuaziWashboard is quite correct. After all, this same argument, about who is fit to interpret Holy Writ, has been going on since John Wycliffe's first handwritten translation of the Bible, into English and the Lollards, in the 1380's / So, please stick to a discussion of the Bible and not to who is, or is not, the most knowledgeable in the interpretation of the Theological fine print.

I was talking about "context". You have to consider context before entertaining any notion of interpreting meaning. Taking seemingly contradictory quotes from different parts of different books that talk about different points in history and juxtaposing them, isn't considering context. It's interpreting them as a contradiction and like you say, who is fit to interpret Holy Writ? well, whoever compiled that list seems to be of the impression that they are. The books are different books and relate to one another in different ways. What the New Testament is in relation to the old testament is context. What Judaism is to Christianity is context (earlier, "Eye for an Eye" came up as a Christian edict for killing people... even though it's actually famously countered by Jesus in Mathew saying "turn the other cheek". Eye for an eye was monetary compensation. Coupled with Jesus' quote, and taking into account Eye for and Eye comes from "Exodus" and "Turn the other cheek" comes from Mathew, one comes from the Old Testament, the other from the New Testament, that's not interpretation, that's context. Once you have those in place then sure, consider interpretation to your hearts content. But I'm talking about context and you need that before you can "interpret holy writ" as some Christian edict for killing people.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Yes. QuaziWashboard is quite correct. After all, this same argument, about who is fit to interpret Holy Writ, has been going on since John Wycliffe's first handwritten translation of the Bible, into English and the Lollards, in the 1380's / So, please stick to a discussion of the Bible and not to who is, or is not, the most knowledgeable in the interpretation of the Theological fine print.

I was talking about "context". You have to consider context before entertaining any notion of interpreting meaning. Taking seemingly contradictory quotes from different parts of different books that talk about different points in history and juxtaposing them, isn't considering context. It's interpreting them as a contradiction and like you say, who is fit to interpret Holy Writ? well, whoever compiled that list seems to be of the impression that they are. The books are different books and relate to one another in different ways. What the New Testament is in relation to the old testament is context. What Judaism is to Christianity is context (earlier, "Eye for an Eye" came up as a Christian edict for killing people... even though it's actually famously countered by Jesus in Mathew saying "turn the other cheek". Eye for an eye was monetary compensation. Coupled with Jesus' quote, and taking into account Eye for and Eye comes from "Exodus" and "Turn the other cheek" comes from Mathew, one comes from the Old Testament, the other from the New Testament, that's not interpretation, that's context. Once you have those in place then sure, consider interpretation to your hearts content. But I'm talking about context and you need that before you can "interpret holy writ" as some Christian edict for killing people.

To further the relevance of context was the instruction to 'turn the other cheek' not specifically related to being insulted rather than a physical assault?

 

[ghostdog19]

To further the relevance of context was the instruction to 'turn the other cheek' not specifically related to being insulted rather than a physical assault?

To further the relevance he broadened the context. He sets out saying he hasn't come to abolish the law of the profits (Mosaic Law), but to fulfill them. So it's a reinterpretation of Mosaic Law.

Here's the quote in context with the rest of the verse:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

From Mathew 5: 21-25 they cover the law concerning Murder, 27-30 concerning Adultry, 31-32 concerning Divorce, 33-37 concerning Oaths, and 38-42 concerning retaliation (lex talionis).

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

barfing_pumpkin....please, no offence, but....give it a rest. I know you mean well, but It's spoiling the thread.

:lol: I don't quite see how a mere two posts (this one making it three) in this entire thread requires me to 'give it a rest'. Nevertheless, I apologise for offending such delicate sensibilities, and in the future I will be careful to avoid spoiling whole threads in such a similarly protracted manner.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

barfing_pumpkin....please, no offence, but....give it a rest. I know you mean well, but It's spoiling the thread.

:lol: I don't quite see how a mere two posts (this one making it three) in this entire thread requires me to 'give it a rest'. Nevertheless, I apologise for offending such delicate sensibilities, and in the future I will be careful to avoid spoiling whole threads in such a similarly protracted manner.

Good chap!
BTW. I didn't mean that you personaly was spoiling the thread but that the general arguing, snide remarks, ect was spoiling the thread. As I said before, no offence meant.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Fair enough. Sorry if the reply was a bit sarky, btw.

Thing is, I can understand your wanting to keep this thread good natured, quazi - but I don't think the subject really lends itself to that. Many people believe in the bible passionately, and many are opposed to it. Bad tempered arguments, I think, are inevitable (and I must confess to, uh, being not exactly innocent in this respect), and in a case such as this, it can be difficult to know where to draw the line. Even your light-hearted idea of drawing a parallel between Marvel no-prizes and Biblical contradictions could be seen by some who hold the bible dear to be gravely insulting. When it comes to religion, somebody somewhere is going to get annoyed, be they a believer or not. I'm not saying that this thread should be a vindictive free-for-all ... just that it's not likely to always be a good, clean, above-the-belt discussion.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Understood....now get off my ****ing thread. :lol: :lol:

 

[rynner2]

IMO the truthfulness has always been in dispute.

Even assuming that the key texts are complete and not tampered with you still have the problem that they are translations and you have the inherent bias of the translator....

Sifting through the scores of different English versions of the New Testament, one is poignantly reminded of how translation, particularly of archaic language, is subject to personal interpretation. It is therefore vitally important that we get as close to the original source as possible. The oldest surviving complete text of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, dating back to the middle of the fourth century. The oldest fragments, the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and Papyrus 52, date back to the second century but only contain bits of the Gospel of John......

http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm

Given that the current form of the NT was devised 1600+ years ago (or so) and has not really changed it present a world view from that time (Pauls misogyny etc). Although the committee is apparently a misconception and the testament grew organically over time.

The rival to the Bible
By Roger Bolton

What is probably the oldest known bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Anti-Semitic writings

The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle. Before its discovery in the early 19th Century by the Indiana Jones of his day, it remained hidden in St Catherine's Monastery since at least the 4th Century.

It survived because the desert air is ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered.

Today, 30 mainly Greek Orthodox monks, dedicated to prayer, worship there, helped as in ages past by the Muslim Bedouin. For this place is holy to three great religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a land where you can still see the Burning Bush where God spoke to Moses.

The monastery itself has the greatest library of early manuscripts outside the Vatican - some 33,000, and a collection of icons second to none.

Not surprisingly, it is now a World Heritage Site and has been called a veritable Ark, bringing spiritual treasures safely through the turbulent centuries. In many peoples' eyes the greatest treasure is the Codex, written in the time of the first Christian Emperor Constantine.

When the different parts are digitally united next year in a £1m project, anyone will be able to compare and contrast the Codex and the modern Bible.

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

Discrepancies

Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

Interesting article with a good point but I disagree with the tone of it.

It's far too sensationalist. I take it that the 'Story of the Ressurection that is not mentioned' is in fact Mark 16:9-20 which is also missing from Codex Vaticanus. Mark 16:9-20 is what is known as the 'Long ending to Mark' and mentions the post-resurrection Jesus. Despite this being missing the Gospel still has plenty of resurrection material - albiet all still to be fulfilled.

 

[lupinwick]

Given that the bible is quite likely full of errors, amendments and omissions couldn't the christians simply discard the bulk of the text and rely instead on what is commonly held to the core of the christian belief? Perhaps even simplify it to "be decent to one another"? OK so it'd do theologians out of a job and make the average bible literalist explode in a cloud of apoplexy but from little things...

 

[JamesWhitehead]

The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas have been available in popular English editions since at least 1926.

I doubt if the bringing together of these so-called Lost Books online will cause the Nine Gates of Hell to open but that seems to be the sort of readership these news items had in mind.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

Written by people who don't have a clue what they're on about. Same as all the Doomsday CERN stuff.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Given that the bible is quite likely full of errors, amendments and omissions couldn't the christians simply discard the bulk of the text and rely instead on what is commonly held to the core of the christian belief? Perhaps even simplify it to "be decent to one another"? OK so it'd do theologians out of a job and make the average bible literalist explode in a cloud of apoplexy but from little things...

You're right!
I vote for simplifying the Bible down to just The Book of Bill and Ted, the content of which is 'be excellent to each other and party on, dudes'.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper...

"All these bleedin' lepers. They just won't leave me alone. Look, here's another one...what is it mate? You want curing? There's a bloody surprise. Come on, then, lie down and let me lay me hands on yer..."

Sorry. It just brought to mind something that might have come from Life of Brian.

The Apostle Peter (as played by John Cleese): "Just don't mention the lepers, alwright?"

Mary Magdalene (as played by Terry Jones): "Why? What's he got against them?"

Peter: "His hands, usually."

Mary Mag: "Yuck!"

Peter: "Exactly. And speaking of which - no 'lend me a hand' jokes, either..."

 

[KarlD]

What is interesting about the bible is that its interpretation among people who all call themselves christains has caused so many wars and so much suffering over the years that really is not that much of a 'good book'.
Us atheists only say that there is no god and the bible is a collection of stories a couple of moral lessons thrown in for good measure mostly stolen from Buddism and a story about a palastinain freedom fighter who was fighting Roman occupation and may have been one man or may have been many people who were hanging around at the time claiming to be the son of god and be able to perform miracles.What it comes down to is athiests tend not to kill each other over thier beliefs and tend not to live their lives based on some moral principles which they have been told are 'good' and which if they are broken will cause endless torture in Milton keans or hell whichever is closer.

 

[Cavynaut]

Why blame the Bible for causing war and suffering? Do you really think that other religions, or lack of any religion, would mean no war or suffering?

 

[KarlD]

Why blame the Bible for causing war and suffering? Do you really think that other religions, or lack of any religion, would mean no war or suffering?

I would be prepared to bet that a lot of the wars over the last 2000 years wouldn't have happend, maybe other ones would have but at least there wouldn't have been the excuse that god was on 'our' side.
A lot of history would have been very different.

 

[segovius]

Why blame the Bible for causing war and suffering? Do you really think that other religions, or lack of any religion, would mean no war or suffering?

I would be prepared to bet that a lot of the wars over the last 2000 years wouldn't have happend, maybe other ones would have but at least there wouldn't have been the excuse that god was on 'our' side.
A lot of history would have been very different.

I think you would lose that bet. Virtually all wars are at root level about territory and financial gain. Granted they may use 'God' as a justification but since when does one accept the justification for anything as opposed to the reality?

No-one knows if there would be less war or not. May be there would be far more.

Two pieces of evidence:

1) Humanity is essentially a violent species. There is abundant evidence from prehistory of this nature. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1943960.stm which details research into Neanderthal man and associated warlike proclivities.

As it seems highly unlikely that early human ancestors had an organised religious framework and even more unlikely that their violent tendencies derived from it if they did, then this is a problem.

2) Over and above this first point, it is clearly (one would hope but it is by no means a certainty these days) apparent to all objective observers that the founders of the current mainstream religions legislated against such things as gratuitous murder, random killing etc.

So therefore it follows that religions try to go against the human tendency towards violence and redress it....one might argue that they fail and I would perhaps agree but that is generally not the argument - the argument is instead that religion somehow causes it.

This is wooly thinking at best. Probably the nearest analogy would be that medicine is responsible for the diseases it has not yet discovered how to cure. because it fails to cure them.

Not very rational imo.